In presenting his case, the House leader of the official opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the bill had been introduced in the House. In describing the seriousness of this matter, which he considered to be a breach of members' privileges, he stressed the need for members to access information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, as well as the respect required for the essential role of the House in legislative matters.

In response, the chief government whip, acknowledging the problem, stated, “...our government takes any breach of the privilege of members and of the House very seriously”. He then noted that such a premature divulgation of the bill's contents had not been authorized and apologized unreservedly, committing to ensure that it would not happen again.

This being the first question of privilege to be raised in this Parliament, I want to take this opportunity to inform members of the role of the Speaker in this regard, particularly as it is a narrowly defined role.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 141:

Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. A Member wishing to raise a question of privilege in the House must first convince the Speaker that his or her concern is prima facie (on the first impression or at first glance) a question of privilege. The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker's opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.

In adjudicating questions of privilege, the Speaker carefully considers the effect that the alleged breach has on members' ability to function. At page 145 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:

In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

This important convention exists so that members can properly exercise their functions as legislators. Speaker Milliken saw fit to reiterate it in that particular case, even though in those unique circumstances—the member admitted to having herself prematurely released the contents of her own private member's bill, so no doubt existed as to the provenance of the leak—he chose not to rule that the incident constituted a prima facie case of privilege.

It is within this context that I, as Speaker, must review each case on its own merits. Having done so, the facts are clear and undisputed in this instance: detailed information regarding the content of Bill C-14 was indeed made available through the media before the bill itself had been introduced in the House. There were no arguments raised to the contrary. Therefore, there was a direct contravention of the House's right to first access.

The chief government whip has unequivocally apologized for any breaches of confidentiality in this instance, recognizing the seriousness of the matter; this should be reassuring to all members. That being said, it would appear to the Chair, at first glance, that the leaking of the bill’s contents and, thus, the pre-empting of members’ access to legislative information, has impeded the ability of members to perform their parliamentary functions. In a strikingly similar case, quoted by the honourable opposition House leader, Speaker Milliken stated, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates of March 19, 2001:

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent [role] which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

He concluded by affirming that it was ”a situation that the Chair cannot condone”.

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

Thus, the available precedents lead me to conclude that this incident constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, and I now invite the House leader of the official opposition to move the appropriate motion.

First, I want to thank you for your ruling. I think you approached it with the gravity it deserves, and you had excellent examples to cite.

As mentioned in the ruling, the details around the case have not really been disputed; therefore, I do not suspect there will need to be a whole lot of debate, hopefully not. I hope all members appreciate the importance of preserving our rights in this matter and, as mentioned, the rights of having first access to legislation.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank the chief government whip for his remarks when this matter was first brought up. It demonstrated the good faith that all members attempt to bring to the chamber. I hope it is instructive to the administrative staff on the government side, perhaps in the ministers' offices or wherever this leak originated, that their first duty is to serve members and the ministers, not to serve political masters or to achieve political ends. They really do have to put the dignity and authority of the House at the top of the list.

Whoever is responsible for this must understand that we are a parliamentary democracy and that political decisions made by staff to try to frame the debate in the media are not acceptable when that infringes upon our rights and dignities.

I hope the House agrees to send this to the procedure and House affairs committee so that the committee can look into what happened, perhaps determine who did it, perhaps determine what systems could be put in place to avoid this type of thing in the future, and if the culprit is found, bring that detail back to the House for the House to decide what to do with it further.

I am going to conclude my remarks there. I think I said everything I had to in my remarks. I do not want to belabour the point. I do appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You summed it up very nicely. I do hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion. It is important that each and every one of us send the message back to the political people with whom we work that the rights of the House are important, that we take those seriously, and that we put them at the forefront when we make these kinds of decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples in support of the justice minister and against this motion. I will demonstrate that she has followed all the rules regarding fundraising.

As Minister of Democratic Institutions, I believe that accountability is a major aspect of a healthy democracy. While we are addressing this, the party opposite decides to engage in petty politics that contribute to the erosion of our democratic institutions. Do not get me wrong. We welcome the opposition holding us to account; it is a sign of a healthy democracy. However, spreading rumours despite facts is the very behaviour that Canadians rejected this past October.

The motion is a vicious and unfounded attack on an indigenous leader, a woman who has and continues to serve her nation honourably. The motion is not helping Canadian democracy. I urge members to put an end to this unhelpful practice of using valuable House time to pursue baseless accusations that do nothing to promote a healthy democracy.

Let me begin with the evidence, as is consistent with our government's approach to decision-making.

The fact is that, for nearly 10 years, the previous Conservatives chipped away at the core of our democracy. Their tenure in government saw an increase in cynicism and mistrust toward the very institutions that underpin our democracy. Instead of trying to build consensus, they divided. Instead of being accountable, they prorogued. Instead of basing decisions on evidence, they muzzled scientists, abolished the long-form census, and based their decisions on ideology.

Canadians chose respectful dialogue over division. They chose an open and transparent approach to government. They chose a government that puts their needs ahead of petty partisan interests.

I find it quite rich too that the party that prorogued Parliament on two separate occasions to avoid answering to Canadians on its actions, the same Conservative government that was found in contempt of Parliament, is suddenly so committed to ethical behaviour and accountability. However, there will be more on that later.

For now, I will point out once again that this behaviour does not help our democratic institutions. Such careless disregard and blatant lack of respect for our democracy has led to a general public sentiment of disengagement, skepticism, and cynicism about politics, a reality that our government is working hard to change every day.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Today's motion is a vicious and unfounded attack on an indigenous leader, an accomplished woman, who continues to serve her nation honourably both as an MP and as Attorney General of Canada. Today's motion is not helping democracy.

Let us review more evidence.

Our government's commitment to a healthier democracy and the accountability that Canadians deserve is clear in the Prime Minister's issuance of the “Open and Accountable Government” document that is a major plank of our commitment to a better government.

As my hon. colleagues before me have explained to the House, the Minister of Justice followed all the rules. In the same interests of evidence-based decision-making, let us review the chronology of what actually happened.

The justice minister consulted the Ethics Commissioner prior to the event taking place, to ensure that her participation would be within the rules. The justice minister was given this very assurance: she was following the rules. Following her participation at the event in question, opposition members began questioning her presence. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton even took the step of writing to the Ethics Commissioner asking for her opinion. At this point I can only assume that he respects her expertise and was intending to accept her decision, whatever it would be. The Ethics Commissioner responded to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in writing, indicating that contrary to the member's baseless accusation, the justice minister had followed all the rules.

There are no secrets on this side of the House. The rules are clear. The actions taken by the justice minister were all within the rules, and she proactively acquired information to ensure that this would be the case.

This is what an open and transparent government does, which brings me back to this important document. This document shows that this government is fully committed to our charter and the rule of law, including the Canada Elections Act. I am disappointed that members opposite are more interested in continuing false accusations against my colleague than discussing how we can better ensure the respect of our charter.

This is what we are committed to, and which all ministers, including the Minister of Justice, aim to achieve. The Prime Minister has high expectations for all members of his caucus, including those in cabinet, and I am proud of the fact that we have shown a high level of integrity. I believe this is a commitment that we will continue and Canadians will be proud of.

Let me be clear. We welcome constructive criticism based on facts and intended to improve outcomes for Canadians, but spreading untruthful rumours despite the facts is evidence of the same old reckless behaviour that Canadians rejected this past October. This careless behaviour leads to an erosion of public trust and reduces the health of our democracy.

As Minister of Democratic Institutions, I am alarmed. Canadians expect us to use our time in the House responsibly. I am alarmed. Is this how the Conservatives plan to spend their time over the next four years? Instead of serving constructively as Her Majesty's loyal opposition and improving the tone and the legislation in the House, the Conservatives continue to spend valuable House time pursuing non-issues and spreading lies. Canadians asked for a better tone and deserve a more productive Parliament, less petty and divisive politics, and more evidence-based decision-making.

Do the Conservatives want to go down in history as a divisive party that consistently ignores facts, evidence, experts, and divides Canadians, or do they have an appetite to focus on trying to build the kind of legacy that the Hon. Flora MacDonald left behind? Time and time again in the House, we have been reminded that our time here is a gift. I urge members opposite to put an end to their baseless accusations, put party interests aside, and resume the task that they are here to do: serve Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions for her comments. I appreciated it when she said there are no secrets on this side of the House. I would like to ask the hon. minister if she would therefore be willing to disclose the list of attendees at the Minister of Justice's fundraiser, and perhaps while she is at it also tell us where the $40 million is that the Liberals lost and squandered in the sponsorship scandal.

Mr. Speaker, I may have spoken for nearly 10 minutes, and the member opposite may have thanked me for speaking for nearly 10 minutes, but it appears that he has not heard a single word I said. This factless, baseless line of accusations is not helping democracy.

Members and the party opposite have received the facts in writing from the Ethics Commissioner. Let us move on and speak about the issues that matter to Canadians, like a healthier economy, a healthier democracy, ensuring that we are moving forward on our commitment to get closer to truth and reconciliation with our indigenous communities.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speech and reply, and I thought the hon. member on this side had an excellent question. I am just wondering, if everything is transparent, why she will not disclose the list.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canadians are so skeptical about government, when we are absolutely wasting a whole day on something as frivolous as a story created from nothing.

Let us talk about Del Mastro, about Duffy. Let us talk about the long trail of fundraising patterns by the party opposite. Canadians are faced with a country which has record levels of unemployment, poverty, and a shrinking middle class. I could go on and on. Instead, we are wasting time today. When Canadians are looking for good debate and good dialogue, we are wasting time on something as frivolous as this.

My question to my colleague is this. Would she not agree that Canadians are tired of this type of politics and this tired government?

Mr. Speaker, while it is important to remember our blemished past, I believe Canadians have trusted all of us, on all sides, to bring a new tone of respect and collaboration to this place to inspire the next generation of voters and leaders. That, I believe, is a cause that transcends partisan interests and that we all need to be working on collectively.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually alarmed, and I am offended. I could go on with a lot more adjectives about how I am feeling right now by the comments of the colleague across the floor. She brought race into this, and I am absolutely 100% offended. Whether the minister is indigenous or not has nothing to do with it.

As somebody who has strong indigenous women in my family, I am absolutely offended and, through you, Mr. Speaker, I demand an apology.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of violating the sensibilities of the member opposite. I was merely stating the facts. The fact is that our Attorney General is a woman. The fact is that our Attorney General is of proud indigenous descent. That is nothing to feel outraged about. Instead, I urge the member to consider celebrating it.